Eudaemonic Comment?

Moronic more like. A recent post on the Betfair forum offered this advice for using Martingale:

Once you have a sequence of around 7 or 8 in a row, that’s when you go in with the money as they are due to hit the opposite .... only a few teams in the time I researched reached around 12 in a row but that would only be 4 chases so you would be fine if going in on match 9. Also depends on the fixtures as well, I was avoiding the likely score-lines i.e. top club v bottom club, so as well as the sequence you have to sometimes avoid certain fixtures. Good fun, but lot of work keeping on track of all results.

I am sure all readers of this blog can see the fundamental flaw in his logic, so I shall spare the poster’s blushes by not naming him, but no doubt his wife, Mrs. Schalke 04, was more than a little embarrassed to see her husband make such a fool of himself on a widely read forum.

Very recently in fact, as some of you are no doubt aware, Swansea City recently went nineteen consecutive League matches finishing Under 2.5 goals. The run came to an end last Tuesday with a 5-1 defeat at Blackpool, but prior to that their last Over 2.5 game was a 2-2 draw back in early December. Of the nineteen matches, 3 finished 0-0, 8 finished 1-0, 5 finished 1-1 and 3 were 2-0.

After seven or eight matches, is the logical answer really to go with the opposite because it’s due, or is the logical answer to go with the flow, because there’s probably a reason for the preponderance of Unders? For me, a run of this kind tells me the team is tight at the back, and not too strong up front, and that the trend is more likely to continue than to come to an end, but if someone is happy to oppose me on the exchanges, then all the better.

The use of Martingale is also seriously flawed. Assuming the bettor jumps in on match nine, that's eleven losses before a winner - 2,048 points on the 12th bet?

Incidentally, Swansea City returned to form yesterday with a 0-0 draw v Ipswich Town.

The poster attempted to justify his logic giving the example of roulette, and his success with a system of waiting for a sequence of say, red winners before backing black. Not that any further evidence as to his cluelessness was needed, but he provided it by saying that casinos do not like the Martingale bettor. Really? That’s not what I’ve seen, with casinos happy to hand out pencils and paper for any fool wishing to track the numbers and look for patterns. There are none. The wheel has no memory. The probability of a red is 18/37, the payout is evens. The mathematics tells me this is not value. Casinos are fun for a little entertainment, though I prefer playing craps over roulette, (much more exciting and a low house edge if you play correctly) but there’s a reason why there are no professional roulette or craps players.